Schubert v. Barris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schubert v. Barris

266 A.D.2d 104, 698 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11657

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 104 (Schubert v. Barris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schubert v. Barris, 266 A.D.2d 104, 698 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about July 9, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although the settlement agreement in issue is ambiguous as to whether both sides thereto could simultaneously produce and broadcast a game show with the same name and/or format, summary judgment should nevertheless be granted in favor of defendants since any rights that plaintiffs may have had in or to the radio and television show “Blind Date” were abandoned in view of the more than 40-year non-use and lack of evidence demonstrating an intent to resume use in the foreseeable future (see, Silverman v CBS Inc., 870 F2d 40, 47-48, cert denied 492 US 907). We would also note that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action since the company that allegedly transferred its rights to him pursuant to an “informal.verbal agreement” had already transferred its rights to another [105]*105Corporation (owned by plaintiff). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address defendants’ remaining grounds for dismissal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about July 9, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although the settlement agreement in issue is ambiguous as to whether both sides thereto could simultaneously produce and broadcast a game show with the same name and/or format, summary judgment should nevertheless be granted in favor of defendants since any rights that plaintiffs may have had in or to the radio and television show “Blind Date” were abandoned in view of the more than 40-year non-use and lack of evidence demonstrating an intent to resume use in the foreseeable future (see, Silverman v CBS Inc., 870 F2d 40, 47-48, cert denied 492 US 907). We would also note that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action since the company that allegedly transferred its rights to him pursuant to an “informal.verbal agreement” had already transferred its rights to another [105]*105Corporation (owned by plaintiff). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address defendants’ remaining grounds for dismissal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 104, 698 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schubert-v-barris-nyappdiv-1999.